The NFL announced the findings that a "bounty program" existed between the Saints and around 27 defensive players during the 2009-2011 seasons. Defensive players would get paid for knocking other players off the field via injury, and Saints general manager Mickey Loomis did not stop the program when directed to do so by owner Tom Benson.

Adam Schefter reports this is likely to cost the Saints multiple draft picks, more than SpyGate cost the Patriots.

Yeah. This definitely makes what happened in teh 2009 NFC Title Game seem a little different. Those guys went after Favre so hard that I remember my Mom, who barely watches football, was getting upset that the Saints guys were trying to hurt him. Guess she was right.

I think it may cost them multiple picks, but I'll be surprised if a 1st round pick is docked, like Spygate did.

Assuming that injuring a player was a specific bounty (which is separate from 'players were paid bounties for hard hits, including hits hat injured players')... ban everyone at the organizational level that allowed it to continue after they found out about it.

"In some cases, the amounts pledged were both significant and directed against a specific opposing player, according to the league's investigation."

This really seems much, much worse than Spygate IMO. I mean, it's one thing to try and gain a competitive advantage through breaking the rules. It's a whole other for some players to agree that they will give $5000 to the guy who takes out Favre. And it's a whole other thing again for coaches to be paying the money.

If it is widespread across the league, they really should crack down on this hard, if I wanted to watch guys try and hurt each other I would watch MMA.

I think it is worse morally and ethically. I think Spygate was worse competitively, especially from an external view of the league. Spygate could give off the impression that a team is actively cheating to gain an systematic advantage. This is a team actively cheating by being d**ks trying to hurt humans.

I fail to see the competitive advantage, football players are already paid much more money to play hard, including legal hits that harm people. And it's legal to legally hit someone with the intent to hurt them and take them out of the game. So, everyone is shocked and appalled when the men who try to hurt each other for millions of dollars get thousands of dollars for succeeding? Paying a relatively small amount of money for something that's otherwise legal suddenly makes it disgusting and reprehensible? It's bad, but I think people are taking this a bit far.

I am unaware that the hit that knocked a player out had to be legal, in order for the bounty to be paid. Even if that was the case, any financial incentive for injuring a player is incentive to push the boundaries, and try to injure, while avoiding a flag. Lastly, there are reports that an outside entity, Payton's agent, put up some of the money. If THAT is true, this is the worst case of corruption in the NFL since Hornung and Karras were caught betting on games. To open up the door for outside parties to pay compensation for directly measured performance, covertly, undermines the CBA, the salary cap, and the league itself, even before we examine the issue of being paid to injure players. Agents today, bookmakers tomorrow. Any management personnel aware of such a practice is deserving of permanent banishment from the league, and that is not the least bit hyperbolic.

And an illegal hit draws a fine and/or a penalty. People pay players all the time with the hope that they will perform well (advertisers, fans who buy jerseys, etc.) and because of the lack of specificity it doesn't break the rules. It's just like real life, you can't give a politician a donation and say, "here, I like what you did" because that's a gratuity and causes corruption, but you can say, "here, I like what you do" and that's perfectly legal. The line is blurry and the difference between the two is slim.

It undermines the CBA and salary cap no more than a myriad of other things. Again, endorsements, speaking and appearance fees, receiving freebies and handouts, tax rates, and merchandising all differ among teams and players based on their market and performance and nobody rails against those things (they have a much larger economic impact on players than tens of thousands of dollars)

Paying money for players to play well isn't a crime, it's the point of the game. Your hyperbolic concerns would be founded if someone had paid for players not to be injured, because cheating to lose is what undermines the system.

I never said it was a crime, which has to do with government. An agent adding compensation for players is a violation of the salary cap, all chatter to the contrary, and the lack of transparency makes it even worse. If an agent can do that, then a bookmaker can do it, and no, the fact that such people were only paying for things that would help a team win makes no difference, anymore than it would be different for an owner to be slipping extra money under the table to players. Believe it or not, violating the terms of the CBA, especially after being specifically instructed to cease doing so, is an extremely big deal.

(edit) Hmmm, now that I think about it, I've seen reports that some players received compensation in the thousands. That is a taxable event. If it is a taxable event that is not reported by the player, that's a potential legal problem, and if an outside entity like an agent misrepresented such compensation as some other type of business expense on his firm's or his personal tax return, not generating a 1099, that is a potential legal problem.

Having outside parties giving compensation to players, in a nontransparent fashion, with knowledge by a team's management, is a very big deal.

I would hope to God that Gregg Williams is suspended. After all, he is alleged to have _administered the fund_, and if anyone should have known the rules it was him. Personally, I'm hoping for a multi-year ban on him. Like five.

Really large fines for Payton and the GM for not stopping it would also be appropriate. Did Benson do anything wrong, other than follow-through?

It doesn't make that game feel any different in that regard to me because the smartest defensive strategy was to hit Favre often and hard. I think going to the Super Bowl was probably more important to the players than some "bounty" they had.

I think that, given how the Vikings dominated the line of scrimmage on the Saints home turf, it is hard to make the case that the Colts had a more favorable matchup against the Vikings. I kind of like the Vikings front four that year, against that year's edition of the Colts' offensive line.

The thing is, by that point in his career, getting consistent pressure on Manning was almost impossible.

Looking back, I think the Vikings would have been a really tough matchup, but trying to stop that Saints passing attack without a healthy Freeney (basically the whole 2nd half) would have been impossible.

True. It might be just my way of coping with the loss by thinking mentally that had we gotten the Vikings we would have won. I mean, had Hank Baskett just not used his facemask to recover an onside kick, the Colts could have easily won.

A few comments from a partisan:
- It appears that this was for the most part funded by players, though I've read that at least one coach may have contributed to the pool. It was not a team-funded thing.
- It is unlikely that the Saints are the only team hiding this kind of thing in their closet.
- Gregg Williams had worn out his welcome before this.
- The only thing I find really surprising is that Loomis and Payton didn't stop it once they found out about it. Loomis was apparently directed by Benson to shut it down and didn't.
- I think the retribution will be harsh and rightly so.
- It's not a great day to be a Saints fan.

"It is unlikely that the Saints are the only team hiding this kind of thing in their closet."

My thoughts exactly. This is just a part of the underside of football. I don't know if any other team has a "bounty program" that seems as team-sanctioned as New Orleans, but this goes on in other locker rooms and position groups in a more informal fashion in the NFL.

I think they end up getting the T-wolves treatment over the Joe Smith affair. Maybe everyone other team was circumventing the cap, but when you do it that brazenly you're going to pay bigtime.

Every time something like this comes up, we hear the "everybody else is doing it too," argument. This argument is presented without any evidence that anyone else is doing it and is used as some sort of reason for why the offenders should not be punished.

Even if every other team in the league is doing it, it should be punished in this case. The purpose of punishment is to change behavior. We don't throw people in jail for murder because it does anything good for the offender or the victim. We do it so that other people will be less likely to commit murder in the future.

What behavior do you think is going to change? Coaches and administrative staff being stupid enough (Comment 25 said it more eloquently than myself) to get involved in "bounties." But a position group (say LBs) could get together and put together a pool. Hell two players can put up a few grand each and the guy who knocks out the most players by the end of the year gets the money.

Does this hurt everyone's sensibilities that much? It's NFL football. A lot of guys don't even need a monetary incentive to make cheap, illegal hits.

The issue is the overt knowledge and even encouragement of Saints' coaches and staff and the fact they were told to stop and continued to do it anyway.

The purpose of punishment is to change behavior. We don't throw people in jail for murder because it does anything good for the offender or the victim. We do it so that other people will be less likely to commit murder in the future.

In theory, yes. But numbers show that harsher punishment doesn't work as a deterrent. In reality, we do it for the vengeance, especially as far as the death penalty is concerned.

I wouldn't ignore the prevention of further offenses by the specific criminal in question as a reason for sentencing. To take an extreme example, prospective serial killers are unlikely to be deterred, but I wouldn't advocate returning convicted ones to the streets.

While lawyers certainly arent helpful, it bears mention, that hurting other people is forbidden by law.

Sports typically get a pass here, because its part fo the game and mostly deemed unintentonal. If you go out of your way to prove this assumption wrong, you should fully expect to be sued like any other brute who believes to solve his problems by hurting other people.

2) I've always wondered if we will ever see a civil case come out of what happens on in a pro or college sports game. Do hockey players give up the right to sue for assault because fights are/were a regular part of the NHL? Are injury bounties a regular part of the NFL? Is it specified in their contracts? (I think this is a bit different than the Al Davis libel case)

2.) Yes, NHL hockey. There will be a civil lawsuit this fall pertaining to the Todd Bertuzzi attack on Steve Moore. There were allegations that the coach wrote the player's jersey number on the board and said that he must 'pay a price'.

I will bet you the Steelers players are chipping in any time a defensive player gets mail from the commissioner. It's a way of telling "play hard and all out - don't worry about the fines. We got your back."
Am I saying it's ok? No, it's not. Do I understand it and am I shocked? Nope.
Is it something totally different than paying each other for injuries? Yeah, that too.

I am very disappointed to find this out but defensive players do sort of all get paid to beat the snot out of offensive players. A Niners fan I know has been talking all season long about how many offensive players their defence has knocked out of games this year, I have no idea if that makes the Niners a dirty team and I am not trying to cast aspersions but football is rather violent and good defenses more so. Of course the saints don't have a particularly good defense.

In addition to being ethically wrong(cheating, and intent to cripple outside the rules) , this reeks of illegally circumventing the cap to boot. If Darth Goodell doesn't want to look like a hypocrite on the player-safety, fair-parity commish he claims to be, he needs to make a real example of them.

They should be stripped of all draft picks this year and next year, and as well have whatever bounty funds were set aside removed from their current cap. Additionally, reduce their roster by 3 players.

Williams should be kicked out of the league, and Payton banned one season. I would say fine the organization as well, but I think they'd be hemorraging $ for about 10 seasons as a result of the above.

I know this is more common than reported, but what makes this especially egregious is the participation of a coach, and if the report is true that Payton's agent was involved, this is off the charts bad, especially if Payton knew.

Why this may warrant a real hanging, however, is if the report is true that the league told Loomis to see the practice ended, and Loomis did not. If THAT is true, then I think Goodell needs to erect a gallows with several nooses, and have more than one execution of a career, along with docking the Saints several draft picks, just to give an education to any other woodheads around the league as to the value of taking instructions from the league office seriously. Frankly, if Goodell had taken a more severe apporach to spygate, for that very same reason, the morons in New Orleans may have gotten the message.

You don't consider docking a first round pick--the worst modern punishment that any NFL team has received--to be a "severe approach"? Did you want Belichick to be castrated with a rusty spoon or something?

For all those ill-gotten wins I think if it were a flat trade without the ethical implications every team would take it every time. Heck, we have three seasons with no real Super Bowl champion because of it. You don't let the people responsible for that stay in the league. The "worst modern punishment that any NFL team has received" was essentially nothing at all in light of the severity of the infraction.

When Belichik gave the excuse that he misunderstood the implications of the league advisory on the practice, and thus continued in his behavior, I would have, if I had been commissioner for a day (and I've never been anti-Patriot), told Bill that I was taking away all his draft picks for a year. I then would have told him that not having to develop a draft board should free up some time that he could use for some remedial English classes. I've found that many slow learners, if given the right stimulus, can rapidly increase their cognitive capabilities.

Seems to work pretty well for the Marine Corps, among other, er, more enthusiastic training organizations, and I daresay I'd be willing to match up their record of successful teaching against the average high school in the U.S.

The people we are discussing as students here, NFL coaches and football players, are more similar to Marines, than they are high school students. I wasn't trying to denigrate teachers, although perhaps I worded it poorly. The point is that the at will employees of the NFL, on average, are extremely sensitive, compared to the population at large, to disincentives.

I will forgo a discussion of who would be likely to perform in their opposite's job better, if an average Marine DI and the average high school civics teacher were to swap roles.

My issue is with the apparent desire to impose excessive punishments, based on presumptions of the sincerity of the defense.
If you're in traffic court, and a defendant makes an obvious bs excuse for failing to keep his inspections in line, and you respond by impounding his car, I don't think you're making society better.

Well, this isn't a court of law. The NFL is a private, for profit entity, and if the NFL decides that a prominent member of the organization has put forth a ridiculous explanation for engaging in misconduct, misconduct that the NFL believes threatens the repuation of the NFL, the NFL is ethically free to mete out an extremely harsh punishment, in an effort to set an example.

Wasn't Buddy Ryan pretty notorious for this stuff back in the day? I'd be amazed if other teams weren't doing this too.

I don't really like the Spygate comparison. I think they're two very different things. The Pats were arguably cheating to gain a competitive edge, the Saints were rewarding attempts to injure people with cash bonuses but I don't think there is any possibility of the outcome of the superbowl being affected.

However, to deliberately set out to injure someone is close to unforgivable, the game is violent enough without going to those lengths. The more I think about it the worse I think it is and the coaches and some of the players responsible should be sanctioned as well as the Saints. Also, fining the Saints and stripping them of a draft pick doesn't affect someone like Gregg Williams, who looks like one of the main culprits.

It is the failure to cease and desist when instructed that makes this worthy of the most severe sanctions imaginable. Again, I really thought Goodell screwed up by letting the Patriots off lightly in the face of their behavior after receiving instructions to the contrary, but this seems like it may have been even more blatant.

I do wonder just what Belichick had to be thinking on the morning he told his cameraman to go into Giants' stadium wearing Patriots' gear to film the game on the first day his former assistant head coach was now the head coach of the Jets.

I think he had to think that he wasn't breaking the rules. Now how he thought that is beyond me. I suspect he thought that the rules were what the rule book said, and that if the "clarification" letter from Goodell was in conflict with the written rules, he could ignore it. But really, that was not a wise attitude to take.

The reason why I favored taking an entire year's draft away from the Patriots was to free up Belichik's time for a couple months, so he could take a remedial reading class, to better enable him to understand missives from the league office.

That's why I wonder if BB even read the letter from the league office sent in 2006.

The rule on the books was:

"No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game."

The Pats were not breaking that rule. Their cameraman was no in the booth, or on the field, or in the locker room. He was in the stands.

The letter in 2006 said:
"Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent’s offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches’ booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

This letter makes it clear that the taping the Patriots had been doing was now considered to be against the rules.

I see some possibilities:
a) Belichick didn't read this letter. Seems plausible. Mangini certainly read this letter.
b) Belichick read the letter, but didn't view it to be controlling. He could have thought "Hmm...Ray Anderson is misrepresenting what the rule says." My analogy would be to say that a letter from the Department of Justice only says what they think the law is. The DoJ doesn't have the power to change the law (recent abuses notwithstanding). For that you need either the legislature to pass a new law or a court to declare a law unconstitutional.
If this is what BB was doing, he was playing with fire. I suspect he may have had a legal case, if rules could only be changed by a rules committee, and advisory opinions by the league office were not intended to have the force of law.

But really, I think it's more likely he didn't personally read the 2006 letter. But who knows, really?

The only problem to me with suspending Williams is that that is hurting the Rams. That said, considering Williams was Fisher's DC, he might have known about this (after hearing that Williams might have had this going on in Washington, it is fine to wonder how far back it went - certainly considering the beating they put on Warner in Super Bowl XXXIV). It isn't really fair to the Rams, but I think Goodell might try to make an example out of this.

I think it's pretty likely that this has been going on for a while. Buddy Ryan used to put bounties on the Cowboys kicker, punter and quarterbacks. Williams coached with Fisher under Ryan with those damn scary Oilers defenses, that's where he learned the 46 scheme that he's adapted. I'd be suprised if he wasn't in some way responible for it and so he should be punished. (if that hurts the rams that's just a bonus for this niners fan;-))

He just about has to, regardless of the effect on the Rams. Otherwise a coach could flout the rules, and when things got hot, change jobs, and then say "Hey, you can't hammer me; look what it'll do to my new employer!".

I know. It's just is sad that there is a possible innocent party that gets penalized as well.

BTW, I like pft's idea of stripping the Saints of their franchise tag (essentially making it that much harder for them to keep Brees, Nicks and COltson) as part of the punishment considering the Saints don't have a 1st round pick.

Shawne Merriman has pointed out his long standing claim that Kevin Mawae deliberately injured him in response to a hit he put on Vince Young at the request of Jeff Fisher. This could get really ugly for the Rams.

Amused to see people here roll out the "everyone does it" line to excuse the Saints. Especially when it's some of the same people who said "everybody does it" was no excuse for Cameragate.

Also amused by Karl Cuba's "well, I don't think it affected the superbowl" excuse. Didn't realize "well, we attempted an illegal act but happened to fail to execute" was the excuse all the cool kids use these days.

I am not making any excuses but I would suspect that this kind of thing is more pervasive throughout the league both in terms of how many teams do (or have done) it and how long it has been in the league.

Also the 'everyone does it' as applied to Spygate was little different in that the argument went that everyone stole signals wheras the pats got punished for using video tapes to steal signals. Thus there was a difference (decide its sgnificance for yourself) in what the pats had done and what 'everybody' did.

I'm curious about this - most of what I've read has quotes from players saying it's pervasive, but I don't think I've seen one yet where they say they were a part of it personally. It might be a matter of self-incrimination, but it might also just be a myth - something that is perceived in other teams, and multiplied in the locker room.

I'm always glad to cheer you up, I was simply suggesting that they didn't manage to injure any of their targets in their Superbowl run. If you are of the opinion that they were delivering a bunch of late hits that affected the outcome of several games then I think there could be some validity to that, I can't remember the games closely enough to have a clear opinion.

Additionally, just because me and some others have said that this has been going on for a while and involves several teams doesn't mean that we condone the practice, I think it's despicable. It could yet be shown that this stuff has been going on across the league for a very long time, it might become clear, it might not and is probably too early to say. I will predict that the NFL will make every effort to hush this up just like they did with the videotaping signals scandal.

As for spygate, which I really didn't want to get into again, I never really accepted that 'everyone' was using video to steal signals like the Pats were, I felt that the 'everyone' in that case seemed to be confined to the Parcells coaching tree. Phil Simms, also known as that blithering idiot Phil Simms, made it clear that he regularly knew the opponents defenses whereas Steve Young is on the record as saying that he didn't have such information.

Last time round Goodell decided that the best thing was to brush the mess under the carpet as far as possible and he'll do the same again after making an example out of some of the people responsible in order to prevent any future bounties.

I also disagree that they didn't manage to injure any of their targets. I remember three late/questionable hits on Favre during the NFC Championship game. I also remember Favre being slightly hobbled late in the game which I think was one factor that led to his costly interception at the end of the 4th quarter.

As a fan of an AFC team, I was neutral on the Saints when the playoffs began, but as I was watching them play against the Cardinals and Vikings, they seemed to be going after both Warner and Favre, hitting them each late or low several times. I'm not a fan of the Colts, but I was definitely rooting for them to win in the Super Bowl. I also remember thinking before the game, if the Saints went after Manning in the same manner, they'd draw a lot of negative attention for it. Perhaps the Saints realized it as well, as I do not recall anything I felt was particularly dirty in the Super Bowl.

Back in 2009 I think it was, I saw Scott Fujita, on the side away from the play, after the play was over, run into the back of Steve Smith's knees with the clear intent to injure.

I can understand the refs missing it. It was nowhere near the play. But this is something that could be looked at after a game is over during the week. They have all those cameras, use them.

The league needs to come down hard on this nonsense. The league suffers when the stars are injured which means less revenue for the teams and then everyone is suffering. This is such stupidity that it has to be stamped out.

1) Loomis banned for 5 years, Williams for 3, Payton for 1;
2) Records turned over to the league and any player who was paid out for a hit that injured is suspended for four games for each injury;
3) Each non-injury hit that was paid out is reviewed right now. If the player can be seen trying to injure the opponent, a four game suspension;
4) Each pay-out due to injury is a fine for the team of $250,000 for each game suspended paid to the injured player's team.
5) Each other pay out, $100,000 paid per game suspended paid to the other team.
6) Both amounts count against the salary cap.

The problem is that Goodell came down so easy on the Patriots that it is difficult to impose this appropriate punishment now.

The problem is that Goodell came down so easy on the Patriots that it is difficult to impose this appropriate punishment now.

You really think it's equivalent to videotape a game that's being played, in public, on national TV, in a stadium where anybody other than a paid employee of an NFL franchise is free to use a videocamera, and to intentionally injure players for money?

That's like saying "Well, that guy who was caught speeding was only fined $85, so I guess we can't throw the DUI convict in jail."

The word "telecast" does not apply to images taken by cameras other than those owned by the TV networks. Indeed, it doesn't even apply to all of those images. It applies only to the images broadcast by the network.

And, FWIW, at no point has it ever been suggested that NFL teams are not allowed to use telecasts for whatever purpose they may deem fit. Teams are allowed to use those tapes as much as they desire.

I blame the players and their union. They should have put a stop to this. Of course owners and coaches will get the blame, but owners' job is to win. The union's job is to look out for the interests of the players.

I don't think you are understanding the interest of the owners here. They pay players to bring in revenue. If those players get injured it costs them money. They lose revenue from their stars, while at the same time they have to spend money to bring in substitute players in addition to the salaries they are paying their injured ones.

They have invested signing bonuses and guaranteed money in many of these guys.

You were wrong. This has been a right-wing talking point for about two years now. 'Everything wrong with America is because of unions.' If only they would get out of the way of the honest businessman/corporations, everyone would be bathing in gold coins.
It's idiocy, but there you go.

I assume you are aware that the institution of a union in the NFL has zero relationship to unions outside the NFL and your gratuitous union-bashing has zero relevance to the subject at hand. If you don't understand why, I would recommend that you get a first-year economics text and educate yourself.

I do blame Greg Williams and the Saints Coaches. But they do not represent the players interests; that's the NFLPA. It's the union's job to stand up for players when the coaches pull stunts like this. Think about what's going on here - it creates a financial interest in injuring a player. Whoever the union rep was on the Saints, he definitely failed in his job.

The real test of the union will come when players are punished by the NFL for their participation in the bounty scheme. Saints player A got $1000 for taking out Opponent player B, and then is suspended/fined/disqualified for life by the NFL. Will the union try to get player A off the hook, or side with player B who was injured by player A? Presumably both players A and B are union members.

Belichick was fined $500k for Spygate. I'd expect at least that for some of the Saints coaches and execs, based on the reports going around. But I think the punishment, to be effective, needs to impact the team on the field in 2012 and maybe beyond. Because it was an organizational failure. Suspensions, yes, and draft picks.

I think you hit on a key point here about impacting the team on the field in 2012. Spygate made sense to punish the team/management for bad behavior but there wasn't really any lasting competitive advantages or lingering effects from taping signals (which could/should be changed by the next game). Injuring a player has implications far beyond that single game and, in some cases, the player's career

Wow. First off, I'm really saddened by this. It's about 1000 times worse than the news that the Giants were intentionally trying to concuss Kyle Williams in the NFCCG because of his concussion history, and that was terrible.

I'm even more saddened because I'm pretty sure people are right when they say that this probably isn't limited only to the Saints. It's probably true that, if not "everyone", at least "many" people do it.

There are definitely classy defenders out there...but there are also certainly ones that see it as their job to try to injure. And that's a shame.

I'm especially upset because I had admired Payton as one of the better coaches in the game, and had thought the Saints to be one of the classier organizations, and one that I could mildly root for when rooting for an NFC team. Now they fall almost to the bottom of my list, and while I don't know that Payton had much to do with this, it will certainly stain him.

I actually agree with morganja (first time for everything, right!) that practically everyone has an interest in seeing this kind of thing ended. People pay to see the stars, and to see the players they recognize. Think of how much less popular the SB would have been in Brady, Welker, Wilfork, Eli, Cruz, and Osi had all be injured on top of Gronk! So fewer injuries mean more revenue for the league as a whole, which in turn means more money to both the owners and the players, and a more enjoyable experience for the fans. Goddell needs to come down hard on this. morganja's suggestions, as usual, are a little extreme, but I would be OK with them... (of course, it won't be THAT hard).

Now to the people comparing this to Spygate...get a grip. Compare:

One one hand, a team guilty of recording the other team's coaches from the sideline instead of from the endzone (where it is legal to do so), on the off chance that there might be a competitive advantage if they faced the same coach again some time in the future and he was dumb enough not to change his signals...

VERSUS

A team, at the behest of the general manager and the defensive coordinator, circumventing the salary cap, paying un-reported bonuses to defensive players, and specifically paying players to try to injure other players. Apparently after the league AND the team owner had instructed them to stop. This happening right as the league "puts an emphasis on player safety".

It's not in the same league of offense. I thought the Patriots penalty was too harsh (mainly, it was Goddell being mad at Belichick saying f**** you to him), but perhaps somewhat defensible. I have a hard time thinking I will feel that anything that happens to the Saints or to Loomis or Williams will be too harsh.

"but there are also certainly ones that see it as their job to try to injure. And that's a shame."
Trust me, every single one of the defenders wants to hit people out of the game. Sure you hope the guy will be ok tomorrow, but for that day; he should be off the field.
It's a mentality thing.

Patriots lost a first round pick, and Belichick lost $500k, for taping information that could have been (less effectively, I'm sure) gained in permitted methods.

Saints players succeeded in injuring an unknown number of players, with a potentially VERY strong case to be made that one of those injuries directly led to a Super Bowl berth, and attempted to injure others. In addition, paying bonuses amounts to circumventing the salary cap.

Combined with the Redskins allegations, I'd expect Gregg Williams to be banned from the NFL for life along with a significant (one million $+) fine, and for the Saints to lose their 2013 first round pick, their 2012 second round pick, and the ability to franchise tag anyone for the next few years. There could also be a salary cap reduction for the team, which would fit the 'evades salary cap' aspect nicely, if it's determined that said evasion was more than speculation.

As much as all this angers me, I can't help but think of Goodell sounding like Captain Renault finding out that gambling is going on in Rick's Café Américain. Doesn't excuse it. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be severe punishment (like Williams being banned for a couple years and the Saints losing some draft picks, for starters). But I can't help but think Goodell himself was somehow complicit in this.

I just had a thought: I think this means that the Saints will not play in the opening game against the Giants. There are a lot of attactive potential opponents for the opening game, including the Packers and the Steelers as well as the Giants' divisional opponents. Saints-Giants would be a great matchup, too, but there's no way the league wants this scandal to be front and center during the buildup to that marquee game kicking off the season.

Wow, this is pretty awful. The comparisons to spygate are apt. I think the proper punishment in this case depends on a few factors. I see multiple levels here each worse than the last.

1. Try to hit hard within the context of the game. Try to hurt, as in pain/intimidation, but do not try to injure.
2. Try to hit hard but not injure, but explicit willingness to violate the rules of the game to do so.
3. Try to injure but within the context of the rules of the game. As in attempting damage, but only via otherwise legal play.
4. Try to injure and damn the rules.

I don't see #1 as a problem except in the context of a pay-for-pain scheme. In fact I suspect that it's pretty much the norm. 2 is a bit worse, but not in my opinion terribly unconscionable. 3 and especially 4 are pretty vile.

If it's four and was commonplace and is not something that is "done everywhere else", which I would consider a very strong mitigating factor but not absolution, I'd say:

1. Anyone directly involved, as in took or paid bounties or approved of it from management perspective, is banned from participating in anything NFL related for life.
2. All non-participant players are immediately deemed to be unrestricted free agents as if cut by the team.
3. Any championship/playoff wins during the timeframe in question are vacated.
4. The franchise is dissolved.
5. The city of New Orleans is immediately granted a new expansion team. If nobody wants to buy a team there, then the NFL sets up a committee a-la the Packers to run the team until a willing owner can be found. The new team would have rights to the record, name, etc. of the old Saints franchise.

The NCAA had it right with SMU. But this is the same set of actions that should have come down on the Patriots in 2007. Considering they got off with essentially no punishment, I doubt that any real punishment will come down here.

Please, there's been plenty of derp on FO for as long as they've allowed comments. It's just that a lot of it here has been brilliantly confined to irrational threads, or possibly Fox message boards scarred and scared most FO commenters into at least appearing intelligent.

Also, there seems to be some ideas going around that it would be ok to have a bounty as long as illegal hits don't win the bounty because no rules are broken by legal hits.

1. I think I read somewhere that the rules specifically prohibit bounties, so that alone would make it very punishable
2. that idea definitely undermines the spirit of the rules
3. There may be ways to pay bounties that don't undermine the salary cap (perhaps if only players contribute) but the way this situation played out seems to have definitely broken salary cap rules.
4. I'm not sure how you could ethically argue this was fine if the bounty resulted in paying someone for a Jack Tatum hit

50,000 pages! At the average rate of 275 wpm, and 500 words per page... by my quick mental math that report would take over 189 DAYS to read! (Assuming one tried to read it for 8 hours per day. Non-stop. With no slowdown due to eyestrain/fatigue/brain hemorrhaging.)

Yes, really. Look at the results. Three invalid Super Bowls. Three seasons where the biggest sport in the country has no champion because one of its team thought it was a good idea to cheat their way to victory. No, that team shouldn't get to stick around. If you're playing poker and one of the players is found to have been receiving signals telling him his opponents card does the casino just shrug and tell him not to do it again? If a boxer wins a championship belt with iron weights in his gloves does he get to keep the title, pay a fine, and keep competing? You're way off base if you think that saying a team should actually be punished for cheating its way to victory is "derp."

So we should dissolve every team that's ever tampered with a not-yet-free agent? That's "cheating their way to victory". We should dissolve the 49ers and Broncos because they "cheated their way to victory" with their salary cap violations in the past? We should dissolve the Steelers because their 1970s teams (including their SB teams) "cheated their way to victory" by being full of 'roid users? We should dissolve the NYJ because they "cheated their way to victory" with their special teams coach and his sideline wall? Heck, the Broncos are known to have taped another team's pregame walkthrough. I don't recall you calling for their dissolution when that came out.

And before you ask, yes, I do believe those things have more effect on the result of games than overtly (yes, despite the "Spygate" moniker, the taping was done in the open by a person standing on the sideline and wearing Patriots staff clothing and at least one opposing head coach (Herm Edwards) even knew it was being done as he was seen waving to the camera on one of the tapes, or so some reports from non-NE media said at the time) taping information which could have been obtained totally legally (though less effectively) by having a guy on the sideline with binoculars watching the opponent's defensive coaches and dictating what he was seeing to a second guy with a notepad.

Belichick basically had the book thrown at him, and by extension the Patriots, for giving the finger to The Goddell. There's a reason he was fined a HALF MILLION DOLLARS in addition to punishing the team with the lost draft pick: The Roger didn't like how his underling was acting.

The worst case of cheating that granted a tangible competitive advantage would be the Broncos evading the salary cap to maintain a Super Bowl team. The Patriots did something that other retired coaches had admitted to doing, and they got reamed for doing it AFTER the "reminder" letter went out.

No one is going to take any lombardis off the steelers but personally I have a lot less credit to the 'legendary' GM and drafting when they were turning marginal athletes into stars with roid juice. So it is somewhat tarnished. Same for the pats wins and videotaping defensive signals. I suspect pats fans uniformly consider it to be a trivial matter whereas many fans from other teams are somewhat dismayed by the whole saga and don't really know what to think.

I thought the Pats got off way too lightly, given the degree of insubordination, disguised as "I am but a simple caveman football coach; your memos are strange and bizarre to me....", but frankly, for any team which was harmed by the Patriots stealing signals, I have about as much concern as somebody who gets their car stolen, after leaving the keys on the hood of the vehicle, while they go in to a saloon to have a few beers. The smallest of precautions would have avoided any competitive disadvantage, and I just can't get too worked up about highly paid people who are too damned lazy to take them.

"Three invalid Super Bowls. Three seasons where the biggest sport in the country has no champion because one of its team thought it was a good idea to cheat their way to victory."

You should read the NFL rulebook on videotaping regulations prior to 2007.

What the Pats did was surely unethical, I still don't understand how they could logistically translate signals in game, trasmit them to their team, shift to the proper counter-play, execute properly and exploit the signals all in 15 seconds. That's absurd.

For me, the trope that the Pats couldn't have derived useful information from their taping is overstated. All you would need to decipher useful information would be to work out which portion of the signal was related to the deep coverage (ie. cover-0, cover-1 etc). Then there would at most ten signals for that, which would be much easier to identify given that the coaches in the booth will have been breaking the plays down as part of their duties. The information wouldn't have to be sent into the qb via the headset, it could be a coach on the sideline signaling the qb pre-snap. I'm pretty sure that deep coverage information could be garnered in this way and that would be a distinct advantage.

I'm shocked by some of the comments made here about "Spygate". With ESPN and its ilk, I can understand posters not knowing the first thing about what Spygate was about. After all, half of them can't read. But here? I am very, very disappointed.

1) There is no rule forbidding the videotaping of opposition coaches.
2) Belichick and the Patriots were not fined for taping opposition coaches.
3) Belichick's interpretation of the league's Policy Manual, particularly section V: Miscellaneous Rules and Regulations, was correct.

"No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." That's the rule.

Goodell misquoted that rule by changing "field" to "sideline", something he didn't have the right to do without a league vote of owners. Belichick, realizing that NFL Films, for one, were granted rights to film on the sidelines, said "f%$k off, Goodell, the original rule stands. We can't film on the field but we still can on the sidelines, so take your opinion and shove it"

As MJK opined, that's what Belichick was fined for. Apparently there is some rule that states a HC is not allowed to tell the league's commissioner to f&%k off.

/no more about this
/not threadjacking a topic that has nothing to do with "Spygate", except that the media, in all their moronicy, will get that one wrong too.

I don't think the Pats' cameraman was on the sideline anyway. I think he was in the stands.

You're offering the defense of "letters from the league office don't constitute rules." I think there's something to that, from a legal standpoint, but our country has gotten so authoritarian that the intended difference between legislative and executive actions appears to have been lost on the public. So people think "If Goodell says it's the rule, it's the rule!"

Favre: "I'm not pissed. It's football. I don't think anything less of those guys."

Warner: "To think that guys didn't think, 'Hey, we'd love to knock Kurt out or we'd love to knock Brett Favre out, or Drew Brees -- or whoever it might be -- I think that's part of the game and I think that's part of the mindset."

My initial reaction was like most, this is a huge deal. Comments like these, and coaches who predate this like Buddy Ryan, make me wonder if indeed it isn't that uncommon. Either way, Goodell has to act, at the very least for PR reasons.

If you're a star QB, it's almost a badge of honor, and not totally unexpected. After all, people have been trying to knock your block off probably since JV in high school.

In addition, if you're a star QB, you have 5-7 personal bodyguards dedicated on each play to doing nothing else but protecting you. You have a host of rules designed specifically to protect you, forbidding defenders from hitting you in a variety of ways or at a variety of times. There are seven striped policeman on the field, and one of their top priorities is to make sure you don't get injured due to illegal action. There are a host of cameras watching, and literal armies of NFL officials who will look at the film from those cameras and punish after the fact any defender who crossed the line after the fact.

But what about that third string linebacker making league minimum, with probably a totla of 4 seasons in the NFL, and playing special teams? The Saints players (and probably players on other teams) get bounties for knocking him out, too. He doesn't have the protection a star QB has. What about that rookie WR showing promise who gets decapitated by a bounty hunting safety? What about that non-star TE who falls on a fumble and has his fingers intentionally broken at the bottom of a pile out of the eyes of the referees and the cameras?

I don't think we should be asking the pamered, protected, darlings of the games if they mind this kind of thing. I think we should be asking the other 20 or so guys on offense who aren't stars and don't get special protection from bounty-hunting defenders.

Gotta love the FO crowd. "Hey, everyone does it; what's the big deal?" "Can you provide proof that any advantage was gained from this or prove statistically that the Saints injured more opponents than other teams?" Rationalize it away all you want; it's against the rules and it needs to be punished.

This just isn't an accurate characterization of the majority of the comments. It seems like one person showed up and said it's not a big deal, but almost every person who's chimed in has said the opposite.

Though the crimes are very different, i think the big thing that both spygate and this have in common is that the nfl issued a warning and in both instances, they were ignored. Given that, i feel the appropriate punishment should be exactly what NE got. Bounties feel horrific, but honestly, i think most of us acknowledge that players are trying to win football games and will do whatever they can to win. Its the same reason so many nasty things happen on a scramble for a fumble or at the bottom of piles.

This involved many more employees of the NFL than Spygate did, and very possibly a more serious transgression against their rules (don't screw with the salary cap), and might even be illegal as Will Allen pointed out these were taxable amounts of money.

is spygate off topic? those are the only two team wide conspiracies in nfl history that have been under investigation. And since we're mostly speculating on what the punishments are going to be, its entirely appropriate to compare the two.

Btw, i feel like yeah, the no thing is probably worse but how much of a punishment is warranted? An entire year's draft? two first rounders?

Absolutely appalling if all of this is true. As a Bucs fan I remember some incidents with Freeman and Blount in Saints games. Puts things in a different light and changes the quality of my dislike of the Saints. Previously it had been of the sports-rivalry variety, now it runs much deeper.

I am with those who think the NFL will have no option but to come down very hard on the Saints, especially in view of the nagging and persistent long-term health related issues the league already faces. I absolutely love football and want it to stay around, but a wave of injury-related lawsuits could derail the whole thing. I don't think that's probable, but it is possible.

If only as insurance for use in potential future lawsuits the NFL will have to mete out severe penalties to show it takes player health seriously. I think that is the main pragmatic difference between this and spygate.

That is another quandary for the NFL. With Williams new contract being guaranteed and STL having nothing to with his past transgressions, how does Goodell suspend Williams for the 2012-13 season knowing that STL will have to pay him his millions anyway?

I agree that since Williams seems mostly responsible here, he should be suspended for a year. I don't see how that gets done though.

It's the officials' job to flag illegal hits. If the officials don't catch it, then it shouldn't be decided later on that a hit or tackle was illegal and then retroactively fined or punished.

This is a big deal, but everyone calling for multiple-year bannings for coaches and general managers and the loss of draft picks is overreacting and doesn't really understand the situation.

You have two things in play here: one, the money exchanging hands under the table. That's what this should be about and punishment should be issued accordingly. The second is a little more complex. If Williams did coach his players to injure others, you have to go back to the game tape to see it. If the officials didn't call it on the field, you shouldn't be able to say "wait, on closer inspection, this hit from three years ago is illegal." So only the flagged plays and hits should be examined.

Next you have to directly tie those plays back to Williams' coaching. If it can be proven that he told his defense to illegally hit this player on this play, or twist that player's ankle every time he's down, then you might have a case. But I would imagine that would be difficult unless somebody has a video of Williams instructing his players to do that during practice or a meeting. (On an aside, Williams should not have issued that statement claiming full responsibility).

But the real issue is the money, not the "dirty" play (whatever that means). Football is a collision sport and if something isn't deemed illegal on the field during game action, then it shouldn't be deemed illegal after the game is over.

A member of management who undermines the salary cap and CBA with hidden payments, especially, as has been reported, with money supplied by an entity outside of the league, in this case, an agent, has given sufficient reason for banishment, for at least a year, if not lomger.

I think you don't understand the potential liability of a covert program designed to directly pay players to cause injury, in a legal environment where the NFL stands accused in a class-action lawsuit of being at best negligent, and at worst malicious, with regard to suppressing knowledge of the long tern danger of concussions. If you don't think the lawyers suing the NFL see this development as as an arrow in their quiver, I think you are very likely wrong.

A bounty paid to injure players is a crime. I'm not sure why people seem to have a hard time grasping this fact. They seem to feel that anything that happens on a football field is governed exclusively by the rules of the NFL.
The courts have given the leagues wide leeway to govern themselves. If the NFL fails to come down hard on these crimes, than they open themselves up to some serious criminal and civil issues, ones which don't have any positive outcomes for themselves and a host of extremely bad outcomes.
Specifically, what we are dealing with here are the crimes of:

2nd degree battery;
conspiracy;
criminal negligence.

McCann on cnnsi has a breakdown of the legal implications.

A slap on the wrist, anything short of a real beat-down, opens up the owners to legal and financial risk. If Goodell has shown anything so far, it's his zealous commitment to defending the interests of the owners.

I will have a problem with the NFL levying a severe penalty for this when Terrell Suggs can admit the Ravens had a bounty on Hines Ward and Rashard Mendenhall after a game where Ray Lewis did in fact injure Mendenhall. The league's reaction was to send a letter to Suggs about his comments. If the league really wants to crack down on bounties, they should penalize the Saints with something more than a letter but something less severe than ideas being thrown out here. Then the league should work to ensure that it is enforced throughout the league.

But it is the NFL's history to make the PR splash rather than actually care about enforcement. That's why James Harrison got the biggest fine yet levied for a helmet-to-helmet hit the week before the NFL decided to crack down on it. Now, a guy like Patrick Chung can be fined the league minimum repeatedly, but Harrison can be suspended for his first finable infraction of the year.

A big penalty followed by a lack of enforcement or selective enforcement is not a way to "fix" the game; it's a way to make a headline and maintain the status quo.

I understand what you are saying, but what makes the Saints case different, with what knowledge we have, is the deep and continued participation of management, which ratchets up the legal exposure dramatically. Also, once again, it really beyond the pale to have an outside entity, an agent, involved in subverting the salary cap. If the rest of the owners don't demand that the Saints take one right between the eyes on this, they are being foolish.

The point about the paper trail, and the salary cap things and the tax issues, is not that they make the crime worse than when Suggs and co are operating something informally, it's that they make something that is inherently, obviously, clearly despicable into something despicable with a paper trail that someone can actually deal with.

As many have said, it's very hard to prosecute actions which have been deemed fair and part of a game in front of tens of millions of viewers, many of whom are scrutinising these actions in (supposedly) expert fashion. The legal issues are important because they give the NFL a way to go after these things.

I get that this is horrible for Saints fans (I am a Saints fan), because this kind of activity is clearly not unique, but you don't get off a murder just cos some other guy has been killing people too. It's a bit unlucky, maybe, that the clear paper trail is in New Orleans, but not very unlucky, because the paper trail is almost certainly leading to the most egregious instance.

Exactly. This is intriguing to me (not that you could tell by the number of post I've had in this thread), because the phenomena of otherwise intelligent, very valuable employees,COMPLETELY screwing the pooch, in a way that suggests a sub room temperature IQ, is just, well, fascinating.

A Buffalo News story about the Bills having a bounty system when Williams coached there. The article quotes Coy Wire about how the bounties went away when Williams left, so maybe "everyone" doesn't do it.

They're Saints, which means they're religious in the first place.
There is nothing new or wrong with human sacrifices (it used to be common in many religious groups).
What is troublesome though is the commercialization of religion (priests should live a healthy asexual life and eat mostly salads) and neglecting traditional rituals (like tearing hearts out of ripped chests of their victims).

If anybody actually reads this far, I have my opinion as a long time (~30 yrs) Saints fan.

1. A one year suspension for Gregg Williams, without pay of course, would be quite warranted.

2. Fines and or game-suspensions for Saints players involved would be warranted, depending on their involvement. I would think that, to maintain "competitive balance", that the suspensions for those players still on the Saints should/could be staggered, so as not to lose 6-7 starters for the same games.

3. Loomis might get fined ~$1M, deservedly so.

4. From what I have read in the Times-Picayune (main NOLA newspaper), Coach Payton was unaware of it, or at least did not participate/condone the activity. He may deserve a fine--he's the HC, after all--but not as large of one. If you disagree, remember that Williams operated as if he had the title of HC-Defense (instead of DC) since he came to NO, and there are/were multiple quotes by multiple parties to that effect. Since Payton called the plays until his injury in the TB game last year, this is probably more likely than for an average HC, esp. one who came from the defensive side of the ball. EDIT: Payton was aware, but didn't participate, according to an ESPN article I just read. (Sorry, have been out of the loop from traveling). He will get a fine, but less than Williams, and prob. equal to or less than Loomis.

5. Stripping the team of some draft picks is probably warranted. Stripping them of all picks, as well as the use of the franchise tag, for multiple years would destroy competitive balance. Since the NFL prides itself on the "Any Given Sunday" motto, I don't see this happening. This year's 2nd & 3rd, or next year's 1st & this year's 3rd, okay. Other lower picks removed, IMO, just don't have the same effect.

6. Loss of some salary cap space might be warranted, but why couldn't/shouldn't it be dollar for dollar? Also, this would be a question for the guy who wrote the salary cap articles posted recently--who's to say that they didn't have the cap room in those years? The highest amount I've seen was $50K--were the Saints THAT tight to the cap? I'm going to opine that this won't happen.

7. To whoever mentioned dissolving the franchise--are you completely crazy? The NFLPA would never approve of losing ~60 jobs. Not to mention that every report I've seen excludes owner Tom Benson from guilt, so why should he be punished? In college, they can get rid of a team--but they don't shut the school down. The players can still get an education and attempt to have a career in football. (Not to mention, the NCAA hasn't meted out the "death penalty" since that time.)

To sum up--my guess on the penalties is a 1 yr. or more suspension for Gregg Williams; a big fine for Loomis; a fine for Payton; fines and/or suspensions for the players involved, based on their participation; and the loss of 2 or 3 high draft picks for the Saints. More than the "Spygate" penalties; not a "slap on the wrist"; doesn't destroy competitive balance. Seems to fit all the criteria.

Most Recent FO Features

2017 was indeed The Year of the Failed Completion. This is the stat where Joe Flacco stands out, but not in a good way. Also: a most conservative rookie, weird splits for Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers, and more Jarvis Landry shortcomings.